The effect of adding randomly weighted edges
Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.
Statement
The +1 in (3) can be replaced by +1 / 2 (which is best possible).
Context
Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "The effect of adding randomly weighted edges", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.
People
Projects
Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.
Interest
Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.
Attempts
No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.
NEW
Problem: Reconstructed conjecture. Let be a connected -regular simple graph on vertices with . Give each edge an independent weight, and let
The conjecture is
Together with the known lower bound , this replaces the in Frieze’s displayed inequality (3) by .
Result: The conjectured upper bound is true.
Use the standard Kruskal representation. For , let be the subgraph of edges of weight at most . We use the following component estimate of Frieze–Ruszinkó–Thoma: for graphs of minimum degree , the expected total weight of all Kruskal edges selected while one of the two joined components has size at most is at most
and, for with fixed large ,
Fix . Let be the minimum spanning forest of . Every Kruskal edge of either is of the small-component type above, or joins two components already both larger than . The number of such large-large joins is deterministically at most , since each large component contains more than vertices and large components, once born, only merge. Hence
Now contract the components of . The contracted graph is connected. Conditional on , every edge between distinct components has weight distributed independently as . Choose, deterministically from the contracted graph, any spanning tree of the contracted graph and add its corresponding original edges. Its conditional expected weight is
Moreover,
so
Therefore
Since , this is exactly
The constant is best possible as a universal additive constant. Take copies of , and connect the two deficient vertices in consecutive copies by a cycle of added edges. This graph is -regular on vertices, so . The internal MST contribution is , while the connecting cycle contributes the expected sum of the smallest of independent variables, namely
After multiplying by , the extra additive constant tends to
as . Thus no smaller universal constant can replace .
Citation: The small-component Kruskal estimates are those used by Frieze, Ruszinkó and Thoma, “A note on random minimum length spanning trees,” Electron. J. Combin. 7 (2000), R41. The replacement follows from the argument above.
Reviews
0 human reviews · 1 machine checkNo person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.
Machine check · not human verification
machine: correctscope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE1
PASS
The proof attacks the correct conjecture: the universal upper bound
for connected dense -regular graphs.
The argument is mathematically sound, assuming the cited Frieze–Ruszinkó–Thoma small-component estimates as stated. The key improvement over the old bound is valid: after exposing , cross-component edge weights are conditionally independent , so an arbitrary spanning tree of the component-contraction has expected cost per edge, not . The bound on the number of large components by , plus the small-component estimate, gives the desired .
The extremal block-cycle construction also gives the claimed sharpness as a universal additive constant. I found no prior stronger/same resolution in the searched literature.
Novelty assessment
TYPE1
Classification rationale: Genuinely new as far as I can tell, but the proof is a short sharpening of Frieze–Ruszinkó–Thoma’s existing argument: after exposing , replace the crude cost per remaining contracted-tree edge by its conditional mean . This resolves the stated conjectural constant and includes sharpness, but introduces no substantial new method and is likely best as an addendum/short note rather than a standalone journal paper.
Literature check: I found no prior source proving the upper bound for all connected dense regular graphs. The current arXiv v6 of Frieze’s paper still states it as a conjecture. Searches for the exact conjecture phrase, “” with random/minimum spanning trees, and related Frieze–Ruszinkó–Thoma/Beveridge–Frieze–McDiarmid terminology did not locate a stronger or equivalent published result. Known stronger results apply only under expansion/connectivity-type hypotheses or special dense cases.
Citation: Alan Frieze, “The effect of adding randomly weighted edges,” arXiv:2004.12986, Sec. 1.1.
A. Beveridge, A.M. Frieze, C. McDiarmid, “Random minimum length spanning trees in regular graphs,” Combinatorica 18 (1998), 311–333.
A.M. Frieze, M. Ruszinkó, L. Thoma, “A note on random minimum length spanning trees,” Electron. J. Combin. 7 (2000), R41.No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.
Endorsements
0 endorsementsNo one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.
Discussion of this attempt
no comments
Discussion
Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.
Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.